Historical Novels, Period Dramas, etc. Should Not Exist!

[DiapDealer]

I try not to draw any hard lines in the sand about what type of fiction I'm willing to read. Mainly because I long ago gave up the notion that I'm the best authority on knowing what I will/won't like based on fluid (and often hasty) sublabels assigned to books by other people. I enjoy stepping out of my comfort zone amost as much as I enjoy stepping back in it.

I've enjoyed many-a-book that past-me would have turned up his nose at.

The way I figure it is: all fiction is pure fantasy, and pure escapism (regardless of whether we're able to convince ourselves that we're squeezing something other than that out of them).

Non-fiction, and fantasy. Those are the choices.

[crane3]

I subscribe to the definitions of "fiction" & "non-fiction" in the Shorter OED.

Stories in the "fiction" category does not have to reflect reality & can contain any amount of falsehood; but then some books in "non-fiction" also has falsehood whether unknown at the time, ignorance or deliberate; falsehood can also be unintentional because of the writer's perspective of what is "important". [SNIP contentious example]

For me, "historical" fiction is just an invented story type that has the background backwards in time. Of course, after any story that is written is already in the historical past time frame.

[barryem]

I can't argue that fiction isn't fantasy but it is more than fantasy, or can be. I like the people in the books I read to seem real. I don't care if they are real. Actually I prefer that they aren't, for the most part. But I want them to seem like real people with the "powers" and vulnerabilities of real people and to deal with situations that seem real. I think my definition of "real" is that if I was there when they were there I might have to deal with the same situation. Fantasy can't do that, or at least it can't always do that.

I've never cared a lot about genre. I grew up before genre was a real part of publishing and writing. I spent a lot of time in book stores and libraries from the 1950's on and it wasn't till sometime in the 70s or maybe 80s, I don't remember exactly, that bookstores began to organize themselves into genres. Prior to that there was non-fiction, fiction and science fiction. Fiction included everything that wasn't science fiction, including fantasy. They were all arranged together alphabetically by author.

Some stores did have a separate section for westerns but even that was pretty unusual.

In those days novels were novels unless they were science fiction. That was considered disreputable and was usually in it's own section in the back of the store, often hidden behind a wall. I spent a lot of time there when I was young. People talked about me because I read SF.

Barry

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

That's why I read fiction; to get away from the world I live in. So, for me, almost any novel taking place during the 20th or 21st century is automatically out. Fantasy, SF, history, alternate history etc. are fine. I also read non-fictional books about different things. But as to fiction, contemporary novels are no-no for me.

For me, the background of a story is important. It defines the way characters react to each other and how they react to their environment. That's why I generally don't like contemporary novels: I find our current time and age boring, probably because I live in it.

Originally Posted by barryem

I've never cared a lot about genre. I grew up before genre was a real part of publishing and writing. I spent a lot of time in book stores and libraries from the 1950's on and it wasn't till sometime in the 70s or maybe 80s, I don't remember exactly, that bookstores began to organize themselves into genres. Prior to that there was non-fiction, fiction and science fiction. Fiction included everything that wasn't science fiction, including fantasy. They were all arranged together alphabetically by author.

Some stores did have a separate section for westerns but even that was pretty unusual.

In those days novels were novels unless they were science fiction. That was considered disreputable and was usually in it's own section in the back of the store, often hidden behind a wall. I spent a lot of time there when I was young. People talked about me because I read SF.

Barry

I know where I'd be found in those bookstores: in that walled-off section!

About genre: I do have preferences (SF, History, Alternate History, Fantasy) and I do have general dislikes (Drama, Hard Horror [think Nightmare on Elmstreet kind of Horror], Romances) but I generally read all. But the genres that are in my dislike category need some elements of the like category. For instance, Pride and Prejudice. I love it, even though it ticks two boxes on the dislike category

[LadyKate]

To me, historical fiction is fiction that is written as if set in the past.

With that as a basis, I do not consider Tom Sawyer or any other book which was written as contemporary at the time it was published as "historical fiction". The way the author writes about the time the book is set is a function of how much they know about the time.

Tom Sawyer was a contemporary adventure novel even though Mark Twain wrote in the latter half of the 1800s. He "knew" the details that he used in his fiction. For someone today to attempt to write of the same time period they would probably miss many of the nuances that made Twain's many books so readable and memorable.

The same goes for Tolstoy! A novel does not become "historical" because enough time has elapsed since it was written for the time period to be "history".